P K SAHAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No. 2449 of 2010, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 8.3.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the impugned order dated 22.12.2009, for compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner, has been upheld.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The appellant was appointed as a Constable on 24.12.80, in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF, for short). He was promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 27.1.84, to the post of Sub-Inspector on 15.7.85, and finally as Inspector on 26.2.2000. He was visited with the order dt. 30.4.2009, of compulsory retirement in terms of rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the previous writ petition bearing CWJC no. 14004 of 2009, which was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law and observations made in the order. The appellant's representation has since been considered by the competent authority leading to the impugned order dated 22.12.2009, whereby the representation has been rejected and the order for compulsory retirement has been passed with reasons recorded therein. The appellant challenged the same by preferring the present CWJC No.2449 of 2010, which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge. Hence this appeal.

(3.) WHILE assailing the validity of the impugned order and that of the learned single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is in violation of the spirit of rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules read with the Office Memorandum dated 5.1.1978, which has provided the guidelines to the authorities for exercise of the power under rule 56(j). He next submits that the authorities are entitled to consider the past records of five years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement. However, in his submission, the authorities in the present case have considered the entire record and have taken into account stale orders of punishment which were inflicted on the appellant from January 1986 to 1999, and the two advisory memos of 2002 and 2007.